Locals ask county not to appeal Saddle Crest rejection

TRABUCO CANYON – Residents are urging county supervisors to stop fighting for Saddle Crest, a 65-home development shot down by a judge in late July.

“This case seems to be a legal loser,” Modjeska Canyon resident Steve Duff told the Board of Supervisors during a meeting earlier this month.

Meanwhile, the project’s legal opponents are tallying up their costs, filing paperwork with the court to recoup money from the county and the Irvine-based developer pursuing the project.

So far, they’ve asked for $4,378.93 to cover filing and hearing fees. Soon, tens of thousands likely will be tacked on to cover nine months of legal fees, though attorney Ellison Folk said her office doesn’t yet have an exact total.

Developer Rutter Santiago got county approval Oct. 2 to build Saddle Crest on 114 acres that Rutter Santiago owns just north of Cook's Corner. On Oct. 31, a coalition of environmental groups and canyon activists filed a lawsuit against the county, the supervisors and Rutter Santiago.

The lawsuit alleged that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not adequately analyzing how Saddle Crest will affect traffic, vegetation and wildlife. The suit claimed the county also violated its own general plan and the 1991 Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan by amending 15 density, grading and environmental laws to make way for the project.

Judge Steven Perk agreed. In his July 26 ruling, Perk said Saddle Crest can't move forward unless the development is revised to comply with original planning mandates.

“Saddle Crest is an inappropriate project for this area – not because I say so, not because the plaintiffs say so, but because the plans say so,” Duff argued. “These plans work,” he said, citing the time, money and attention that went into developing them. “They’re doing the job they intended to do, and that is why they had to be vivisected, essentially, with dozens of bizarre amendments to make way for this project.”

Rutter Santiago hasn’t responded to inquires about whether it plans to appeal the ruling – or what will happen to the property if the ruling stands. However, the day the ruling was released, county spokeswoman Jessica Good said the board planned to appeal.

Supervisor Todd Spitzer, who represents the canyon areas as part of his Third District, said he’s still doing research, since the project was approved before he joined the board.

“Rest assured I haven’t formed any opinions, and I’m still working on it,” Spitzer told Duff.

It’s not clear, Spitzer said, when the board will discuss whether to take further action – a discussion that will occur during closed session, since it involves litigation.

The county and Rutter have 60 days from the ruling, or until Oct. 5, to file an appeal.

Duff predicted any appeal likely will go much the way it did when the same groups butted heads a decade ago.

In 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved plans for Rutter Santiago to build 162 homes on the Saddle Crest property along with acreage to the east and south, known as Saddle Creek. Activists filed suit that time, too, and a state appeals court threw out the project in 2005.

Rutter Santiago later sold most of its 600 acres in Trabuco Canyon, with most dedicated to conservation and the company’s last 114-acre parcel set aside for Saddle Crest.